Posted by: Adam McCann

Immigration, and how to handle it, continues to be a contentious topic in the United States in 2019. Currently, much of the debate revolves around border security and President Trump’s proposed wall. A partisan disagreement over funding for said wall is a big factor in the partial government shutdown that lasted from the end of 2018 into 2019 – the longest in history. But political differences aside, there’s no question that immigration as a whole affects the economy.

In light of recent developments in U.S. immigration policy, WalletHub compared the economic impact of foreign-born populations on the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We determined which states benefit the most — and least — from immigration using 20 key indicators. Our data set ranges from median household income of foreign-born population to jobs generated by immigrant-owned businesses as a share of total jobs. Read on for our findings, additional commentary from a panel of experts and a full description of our methodology.

1. Main Findings
2. Ask the Experts
3. Methodology

Main Findings Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/32248/geochart-immigrant.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://bit.ly/2DYU46s>

 

State Economic Impact of Immigrants

Overall Rank*	State	Total Score	‘Workforce’ Rank	‘Socioeconomic Contribution’ Rank	‘Brain Gain & Innovation’ Rank	‘International Students’ Rank
1	California	77.01	2	1	4	8
2	New York	74.62	3	4	2	1
3	New Jersey	70.56	1	3	3	23
4	Massachusetts	61.12	9	9	10	1
5	Maryland	59.08	11	6	7	19
6	District of Columbia	57.41	5	26	12	1
7	Delaware	56.92	12	20	1	5
8	Illinois	55.89	7	14	11	9
9	Florida	55.85	4	7	21	31
10	Washington	55.80	13	13	5	12
11	Connecticut	55.31	10	8	13	10
12	Virginia	52.50	15	11	9	27
13	Nevada	49.87	6	5	22	48
14	Texas	49.09	8	12	20	21
15	Hawaii	46.49	14	2	39	28
16	Michigan	45.83	19	22	6	13
17	Pennsylvania	45.48	20	29	8	6
18	Arizona	43.83	16	10	28	15
19	Georgia	41.87	17	19	15	29
20	Rhode Island	40.17	18	17	32	4
21	North Carolina	35.48	21	25	18	37
22	Minnesota	35.15	28	27	14	25
23	Oregon	34.55	22	16	31	20
24	New Hampshire	33.06	26	18	30	17
25	Missouri	32.51	38	40	16	14
26	Colorado	32.47	23	24	26	30
27	Indiana	31.91	34	41	23	7
28	Ohio	30.65	35	32	24	18
29	Wisconsin	29.51	39	36	19	33
30	Kansas	29.14	32	35	25	24
31	Vermont	28.37	36	23	35	16
32	Iowa	28.06	43	38	29	11
33	Kentucky	26.61	40	50	17	35
34	New Mexico	24.91	24	21	47	46
35	Alaska	24.63	27	15	46	51
36	Nebraska	23.73	42	39	33	22
37	Utah	23.58	29	28	44	36
38	Alabama	22.83	46	47	27	38
39	West Virginia	21.70	49	42	36	26
40	Oklahoma	21.67	41	34	43	32
41	North Dakota	21.17	25	48	42	34
42	Tennessee	21.14	33	45	37	43
43	Arkansas	20.94	37	43	38	42
44	Louisiana	20.27	31	51	34	39
45	South Carolina	20.14	30	44	40	47
46	Maine	19.86	45	31	41	50
47	Idaho	18.03	47	30	50	41
48	Montana	15.93	51	33	45	45
49	South Dakota	15.74	44	49	48	40
50	Wyoming	15.11	48	37	51	44
51	Mississippi	13.19	50	46	49	49

*1=Largest Economic Impact

 

Ask the Experts

With immigration and border security continuing to hold a prominent place in 2019’s political climate, we asked a panel of experts to share their thoughts on the following key questions:

1. Do you think the immigration plan proposed by the Trump administration will be effective in reducing undocumented immigration?
2. Recent estimates suggest that net migration from Mexico to the U.S. is below zero in recent years — that is, more Mexicans are leaving the U.S. than entering. Do you think this trend will continue?
3. What is the best way to enforce the immigration law without breaking families apart?
4. Should the U.S. tighten its legal-immigration policies?
5. Are immigrants an economic benefit or an economic drain to states?

< >

• Richard C. Jones Ph.D. – Professor of Geography and Environmental Sustainability, Coordinator, Geography Program, Department of Political Science and Geography, The University of Texas at San Antonio
• Victor Menaldo Ph.D. – Associate Professor, University of Washington
• Kari E. Hong Assistant Professor of Law, Boston College
• James M. Lutz Professor, Department of Political Science, Purdue University at Fort Wayne

Methodology

In order to determine the states in which immigration has the most positive economic impact, WalletHub compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across four key dimensions: 1) Immigrant Workforce, 2) Socioeconomic Contribution, 3) Brain Gain & Innovators and 4) International Students.

We examined those dimensions using 20 key metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on 100-point scale, with a score of 100 representing “most positive economic impact.”

We then determined each state and the District’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its overall score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.

Immigrant Workforce – Total Points: 30

• Share of Foreign-Born Workforce: Double Weight (~10.00 Points)
• Work Visas per Capita: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)Note: “Work Visas” refer to employment permits granted to immigrants and nonimmigrants and include the following categories: Permanent, H-1B, H-2B and H-2A.
• Jobs Generated by Immigrant-Owned Businesses as a Share of Total Jobs: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)Note: This metric was calculated using the following formula: Number of Employees at Immigrant-Owned Firms / Total Number of Employees.
• Share of Foreign-Born Business Owners: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)
• Share of Active Physicians Who Are International Medical Graduates: Full Weight (~5.00 Points)

Socioeconomic Contribution – Total Points: 30

• Share of Foreign-Born Population: Full Weight (~3.75 Points)
• Share of Second-Generation Immigrant Households: Full Weight (~3.75 Points)
• Share of Income Generated by Immigrant Households: Full Weight (~3.75 Points)
• Median Household Income of Foreign-Born Population: Full Weight (~3.75 Points)
• Net Difference Between State and Local Revenues and Expenditures per Immigrant: Full Weight (~3.75 Points)Note: This metric underlines the net difference between the revenues that the state and local governments get from an immigrant and the expenditures that they have with that person. We took into account all emigrant generations (1st, 2nd and 3rd+).
• Homeownership Rate for Foreign-Born Population: Full Weight (~3.75 Points)
• Immigrant-Owned Businesses Income Generated as a Share of Total Business Revenues: Double Weight (~7.50 Points)

Brain Gain & Innovators – Total Points: 30

• Foreign-Born Population Aged 25 & Older with a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)
• Foreign-Born STEM Workers as a Share of Total STEM Workers: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)Note: This metric was calculated using the following formula: Number of Foreign-Born STEM Workers / Total Number of STEM Workers.
• H-1B Visas per Capita: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)Note: “H-1B Visas” refer to a visa category that “applies to people who wish to perform services in a specialty occupation, services of exceptional merit and ability relating to a Department of Defense (DOD) cooperative research and development project, or services as a fashion model of distinguished merit or ability.”
• Share of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)Note: This metric was calculated using the following formula: Number of Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children in the State / Total Number of Fortune 500 Companies in the State.
• Share of Foreign-Born Fortune 500 CEOs: Full Weight (~6.00 Points)Note: This metric was calculated using the following formula: Total Number of Foreign-Born CEOs in the State / Total Number of Fortune 500 Companies in the State.

International Students – Total Points: 10

• Number of International Students per Total Students: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)
• Economic Contributions of International Students per Capita: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)Note: “Economic Contributions” refer to the financial contribution of international students through their consumerism, particularly “in the higher education, accommodation, dining, retail, transportation, telecommunications and health insurance sectors,” according to NAFSA: Association of International Educators.
• Direct & Indirect Jobs Created by the Economic Contributions of International Students as a Share of Total Jobs: Full Weight (~3.33 Points)Note: This metric was calculated using the following formula: Number of Direct & Indirect Jobs Created as a Result of the Economic Benefit of International Students / Total Number of Jobs.

Videos for News Use:

• YouTube (for web embedding National)
• YouTube (for web embedding California)
• Raw files (for editing into clips)

 Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, National Academy of Sciences, Partnership for a New American Economy Research Fund, Association of American Medical Colleges, American Immigration Council, Center for American Entrepreneurship, Boardroom Insiders, Time and NAFSA: Association of International Educators.

Image: Africa Studio / Shutterstock.com

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress